Is This Just What the EMF Doctor Ordered

 This makes interesting reading, in my perception, but more then  that,  
this would be useful especially for those whom are planning on  going to court
concerning adverse health effects from smart meters, cell  and rooftop
towers, and wireless devices.
                     blessings
                               Shan
 
Daubert v. Merrell Dow: Is This Just  What the EMF Doctor Ordered? 1994
_http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1532&context=pel
r_
(http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1532&context=pelr)
Excerpts:
Are the illnesses observed simply the  statistically expected **normal**
rates among the population or can it be that exposures to these modern
everyday  conveniences increase the chance for serious illnesses? 2
Although answers to these  questions are not currently available, people
who believe they were injured by these phenomena are seeking compensation in
the courts. 3  The courts, in accordance with legal principles, must  decide
if the plaintiffs* injuries or illnesses were caused by exposure to these
environmental hazards, regardless of whether there  is conclusive scientific
proof of causation.4 This is  the center of most **toxic tort** litigation.5
Legal causation in these cases  can be onerous for plaintiffs to prove and
often  requires expert testimony detailing scientific  evidence because
exposure to the  offending substance may have been short-term, in small amounts,
and the effects may not manifest themselves  for many years after the
exposure.6
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow  Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,7 the Supreme Court
announced the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence at trial. This  
article will discuss the decision and examine how it might affect plaintiffs*
cases seeking compensation for injuries  allegedly caused by exposure to
electromagnetic fields  (EMF) generated from electric power lines and household
appliances.8
Specifically, the article will focus on the effects of  extremely low
frequency (ELF), 60 hertz EMF, which most  thought were not connected with
potential health problems. Part II is a  discussion of what EMF are, their
sources, and a review  of the research dealing with EMF-related health effects.
 
Part III gives a historical overview of  previous case law regarding the
admissibility at trial of
scientific evidence. Part IV is a discussion of the  Daubert decision. Part
V is an analysis of how this new ruling may affect the  outcome of current
and future litigation involving EMF.
 
 Part VI is the  conclusion.
3. One author has indicated  that over 100 EMF lawsuits have been filed
since 1985.  
ELLEN SUGARMAN, WARNING: THE ELECTRICITY AROUND YOU MAY BE  HAZARDOUS To
YOUR  HEALTH 174 (1992). A newspaper article recently  published a survey by
the Texas Public Utilities  Commission which revealed  that in 1992 alone 201
challenges to utility projects were based  on  EMF concerns. BillRichards,
Elusive Threat - Electric  Utilities Brace for Cancer Lawsuits Though Risk
is Unclear, WALL ST. J., Feb. 5,  1993, at Al.
4. For example  in Christophersen v. Allied Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106
(5th Cir. 1991), the  court had to decide whether nickel and cadmium were the  
cause of plaintiff's colon cancer despite the  lack  of conclusive
scientific proof of causation. Likewise, the court in Renaud v.  Martin Marietta
Corp., 749 F. Supp. 1545 (D. Colo.  1990), had to decide if there was sufficient
legal causation between rocket fuel  and the cancer complained of by the
plaintiffs without knowledge of  scientific  proof of causation.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]